Two Judges Say Go Deep - Don't Play It Safe

I read two blog posts today that touched on poetry contests and I noted a similar view help by two people who have been contest judges and I thought they were worth mentioning.

I have note entered a lot of contests - I maybe average one to two entries a year so I'm one one who has a lot of personal experience with the contest circuit.

One of the two pieces that I'm talking about was an interview in Ploughshares of Mary Biddinger by Victoria Chang. I've met Victoria at a reading in Kansas City I believe in 2008. I've read two of her books Circle and Silivinia Molesta. I enjoyed both but was much impressed by Circle as a first book.  Biddinger I've never met or heard read but I have her book Saint Monica which I was so in love with I I can hardly contain myself in wait for her next book O Holy Insurgency. She is the queen of Catholic poetic culture.

The second piece that I read was a blog post by Susan Rich. I've never met Susan either but have her book The Alchemist's Kitchen. One thing that I've appreciated about Susan is that she is a poet who not only has a strong social consciousness but will on occasion allow it the gently permeate her work.

So insight of interest did I glean from these two sources? Rich pointed out, "...all the poems that were sent on to me were quite competent. However, competent is not enough to win a contest. The poems that startled me, that made me want to read then and re-read them, the poems that could not be nailed to a chair in terms of their meaning."  Her advise specifically was to, "Choose to send your poems that take risks."


Mary Biddinger said  she loves  "Poems with teeth... poems that aren't afraid to use their teeth." For Biddinger, she would rather see "a manuscript that makes a few missteps, but dose so with bravery, versus a highly-polished competent, yet safe collection."


If you take to heart what these two poet/judges have to say on the subject, it comes down to being willing to take the risk.  I suppose this really should come as no surprise because it really is the poem that stands up and dares to be different that gets noticed. I can recall shuffling through pages of work in the past and  pulling from it the pieces that seemed the most polished. I will try to not make that mistake again.

Going to Poetry the Bigger Picture

The other day I posted a quotation that I came across via a tweet by Terresa that struck me profoundly.  The quote I posted here on Thursday.  I posed the question - why do you go to poetry and so far there has  been not a soul come forward to share their response.  But the quote is worthy of more then just a retweet or reposting. It is worthy because it opens up my mind to larger questions.  So to start with... here is the quote again:

"The reason we go to poetry is not for wisdom, but for the dismantling of wisdom." - Jacques Lacan


Over the years there have been any number of essayists that have tackled questions about to what degree if any that poetry can make a difference in one's life.  I don't imagine what I am going to say is groundbreaking, but the degree to which one approaches the reading of poetry I believe can inform one's perspective on some of the more philosophical questions involving life today.  

Take the business world... Author Tom Ehrenfield writes, "entrepreneurs, like poets, invent new ways to connect people, ideas, and organizations."  It is the inventiveness, the creative approach to things that is perhaps the most important things man has going for him.

Today's economic issues could use some inventiveness.  When certain people believe that the current debt crisis can be simply approached by not increasing the debt ceiling and to cut spending and then think others "stupid" because they cannot see what is so simple to them they fail because the problem is more complex then that and their solution ignores so many factors. These people are probably the first to run from a poem holding hands over their ears chanting loudly I don't want to hear it, don't read it. Considering the many factors in such an issue requires more thought commitment then they are willing to out into the equation.

As a people we have achieved much over the history of man by reason of our creativity. Our willingness to look at things differently then that first one dimensional approach.

Without stretching our mind, penicillin is never discovered. The Wright brothers are grounded indefinitely.  There is no moon landing. Cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's will never be cured.

I have read that more and more Fortune 500 companies a looking for qualified employees that have experience/interest in poetry and literature.  It's not because they, the CEO's are looking for someone with such interests to chew the fat with over lunch, but because such people are adept at creating solutions to problems and not just adding 2+2 to equal 4.

So when someone asks you if poetry really matters... if it can save you, the long answer may just be yes!

I submit that the solution to our many environmental challenges, finding cures for many incurable illnesses, solving our economic woes, feeding the world hungry, and living a peaceful coexistence with people people from different cultures around the world all involve the poetics of creativity. Personal enjoyment aside (which I consider one very good reason to go to poetry) its model may very well our very salvation as a people.

Why we go to poetry

"The reason we go to poetry is not for wisdom, but for the dismantiling of wisdom."  - Jacques Lacan



Thanks to Terresa who lead me to the quote!



Why do you Go to poetry?

The Making of a Great Poem

Over the years I've come across a few people... some contemporaries, others from the past that own a collection of thoughts, of sayings that are so profound that I find myself amazingly nodding my head yes, yes! to the vast majority of their collected quotations. One such person is Anais Nin. I could do a lengthy post of such profound statements from her, and I have quoted her here several times over the years-  but today I have chosen one thing that she said that I believe embodies what I think should answer the question, What should a really great poem do?"

 

Nin says, "It is the function of art to renew our perception. What we are familiar with we cease to see. The writer shakes up the familiar scene, and, as if by magic, we see a new meaning in it." 

If in the end, a poem can achieve this... can take the familiar and cause us to look at it and see something different, or in a different light... that is art... that is poetry!


Who Speaks To You! What person/persons has/have many profound quotations that speak to your core thoughts and belief systems?

Linking to Another Place or Time

 

 

I love this quote from Merwin… it’s sort of how I see poetry. A poem can be the link between another place or time. It’s a stone.

"The story of each stone leads back to a mountain." — W.S. Merwin

 

Technorati Tags: poetry in theory

More on Truth and Poetics

The other night, I noted a quote by Laurie Sheck and then headed off to bed to contemplate her words. I'll repeat them here now.

"The poet unmasks the language of power. The language of power is the language of the lie."

As I thought that evening about her words, as well as the following day I kept coming back to the thought that if poetry unmasks the language of power, and the language of power is the language of the lie, then poetry must be about truth. But that was an easy step for me because I've come to accept poetry as in essence a truth.

Now I know there are plenty of individuals who fail to understand the concept of poetry as "a truth" but for those who might be reading this and shaking their head, let me explain.

Where you often here people argue the concept of poetry equals truth is they will often ask about a specific poem and the details therein. When they find that the poem is not specifically about an incident that really occurred to the poet, they will jump on that as fiction.

For some, truth is an absolute. It is indisputable. Within that context, if you hold something to be true but I hold something different to be true, one of us has to be wrong. It is an all or nothing proposition. In the realm of poetics today I think we must accept that there are truths that are less than absolute. We can see something and explain it for example in a metaphorical context. In fact you and I may explain it using different metaphors. You may be able to agree that you can see what I am saying but you might have chosen a totally different metaphor then I. In this way, language allows for truths that are not absolutes. It is in the language of poetry that we can see the same thing in different ways sometime looking squarely at that which is disingenuous and calling it out.

If language has power (and I believe it does) it has it to the extent that we allow it to. Poetry frees us to use language rather than allow language to control us. Through poetry, that lie is looking a little less secure to me.

Technorati Tags: Laurie Sheck,poetry,language,power,lies,truth,poetics

Exploring the revision before you write anything down

While reading yesterday I discovered an interesting sentence attributed to the poet William Stafford from his journal writings. The entry in question reads: “I must explore the revision that happens before you write anything down.” Disappointingly, there weren't any added lines of his exploration on this subject.

What Stafford is alluding to can be considered in two different categories. One is the process of selecting exactly what you want to say and choosing the best words at that moment (certainly subject to change) before you actually write the complete thought upon a page. But there is another aspect that touches upon something I have blogged upon in the past that continues to confound me. It is what I refer to as “self censorship” and while it can be very controlled and directed by the writer, I wonder about the less obvious possibilities as they might relate to the revision that takes place in the mind before reaching the page.

When driving and approaching an intersection with traffic signal, the mind makes decisions that are split second and we don’t seem to be totally cognizant of the process. We know for example what the color signals of the light mean, but coming upon a yellow light there is something that happens quickly to inform us of our decision ahead of applying the breaks or perhaps more gas. It all happens so quickly there seems not the internal banter going on in the brain that you might experience in writing a first line upon a page, where there may be significant forethought that is very transparent. Afterwards, you may be able to recount to another, “I chose this word over that because…” The process of reaching your decision seems retraceable.

Going through the yellow signal or not is likely tied to some internal understanding if fear. Fear of what might or might not happen. I assume there is an assessment of perceived risk, but it happens so quickly we don’t seem to be aware of the data-in and the data-out that makes up the final decision.

I think all writers have safe zones and danger zones to their writing. It may be subjects or it may be images we don’t feel comfortable putting into words. Staying within our comfort zones is of course very limiting. We may find our subject matter tends to repeat. Our choice of vocabulary could become so common that all our work starts to fall into the same tone.

If we perceive danger and make split second decisions on the road, do we do the same with word or subject choices before we commit those thoughts to the page based upon our own preconceived notions as what is safe to write and what is not safe? Do we self censor without real cognitive choice?

Writing reveals us to readers in ways that become exceedingly personal. There is some degree of risk associated with everything we write. The risk we'll look silly. The rick we'll me misunderstood. The risk that everything we write suggests that we've experienced what we've written or that what we write is how we feel about something. Keep in mind that we are the first readers of our own work. Sometimes we may be startled by our own writing. I have no idea if any of this occurred to William Stafford in pondering the mental revision before we commit to page but it is a discussion I would love to have had with him.

Distinguishing your poetry from prose

The connection between music and poetry is the topic of a blog post yesterday by Kelli Russell Agodon. It's worth taking a moment to read her explanation as I believe it offers great insight into the sound our writing makes and what it can do to the poem. Check it out here.

P isn't for pessimism

I filled up my gas tank yesterday. I didn’t like it, but we are a mobile society and I do have to get to and from work. I heard the cost of petrol on the exchange flirted with 100 a barrel and I saw this morning it was up there again.

No one I know has recently accused me of being a Pollyanna, but I’m not the grim reaper either. Reading Dale Smith’s 2008 poetry forecast makes me wonder if I should buy stock in Pfizer. Surely any poet who is not already on Zoloft will require it before long if Dale’s State of the Poetry Union Forecast were to be on the mark.

I’m not suggesting that there are sweet days ahead for the American Economy. I don’t care what the other economic indicators are, you spend $8.25 billion a month that is not factored anywhere in your budget for a war, over an extended period and there are going to be serious economic repercussions. That goes without the housing market sagging or the price of fuel. I’ll give Dale credit, we are in a mess and he’s called that right. But what Dale has described is a total financial collapse of the economy and linked to it a very disparaging result for the state of poetry.

Much of, no, nearly all of poetry written today is free from connection to our economy.
A good number of poets I know – many of which are quite accomplished writers don’t see economic rewards from their work and will write no less in 2008 irrespective of the price of fuel oil.

This past year was a pretty nasty year and I’d say that as divided as this nation is politically, we have right now about a 50% shot that the next president will move this nation in the right direction. It’s a crap shoot, and I’m being honest. Even if we are fortunate, the present state of affairs is so bad; I can almost guarantee we won’t even be halfway out of the sorry state of this nation by the time 2008 is over. Even so, poetry can and likely will flourish.

Most poetry readings are generally a local event. I see little chance of these becoming a thing of the past. The state of small presses has been changing for some time and likely will continue. Already we are seeing a shift in the print industry to print on demand for a number of reasons… inventory costs, environmental considerations to name a couple. As for the Internet, it's even far more cost effective as a means of commerce and would likely flourish in time of critical fuel costs/supply.

The year 2008 can go to hell in a hand basket and poetry will likely continue. It's in tough times that poetry seems to crawl out of the cracks of inspiration from nowhere and spring up everywhere.

Finding duende

I've been reading some material from several sources on the subject of duende. I find myself transfixed the concept of this sort of anti-muse. It's amusing that so much time and energy is focused on us finding the inspiration of our muse and yet there is beneath the surface this vast iceberg of subconsciousness that we as poets so often abnegate.

I've spoken here in the past about how so often the really striking poetry rises out of conflict. This is something Donald Hall has written about in essay. In Edward Hirsch's the demon and the angel - Searching for the Source of Artistic Inspiration he talks about the emergence of the duende philosophy I believe first introduced by the Spanish poet Federico Garcia Lorca in a 1930 lecture. There are a variety of other poets and philosophers who speak of this same mysterious force deep within human nature. I am finding the shared view of numerous poets on this subject to be a significant part of my learning curve as it relates to poetics.

In both my own writing and in the works of other poets that I especially enjoy reading, I like to see and feel dissonance. That contrasting conflict that arises when we write from inspiration on one hand, and allow ourselves the uncensored deep rooted mysterious part of our self to come out and play in our work. It is when these two forces - internal and external are present that I believe the best writing often occurs.

Enough on this subject tonight... but I will take it up again tomorrow.